Considered
and decided by Peterson, Presiding Judge, Amundson, Judge, and Anderson, Judge.

U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N

PETERSON, Judge

Pro se
relator Tatyana Novitsky appeals from a decision of the representative of the
Commissioner of Economic Security that she is disqualified from receiving unemployment
compensation benefits because she was discharged for employment
misconduct. We affirm.

FACTS

Respondent
Big Ten Audit, Inc., an accounting firm, employed Novitsky as an auditor
beginning November 8, 1998. During her
last year of employment, Novitsky experienced substantial personal problems,
which caused her to miss work and to spend time at work dealing with her
personal problems.

On
February 8, 2000, David Engen, the office manager at Big Ten, issued a written
warning to Novitsky. The warning put
Novitsky on notice that management expected Novitsky to perform her auditing
duties eight hours per day; that personal telephone calls in excess of three
per day totaling ten minutes would be unacceptable; that absences from the
office in excess of two 15-minute breaks and a lunch break would be
unacceptable; and that any violations could be grounds for immediate dismissal.

On
July 10, 2000, Novitsky was assigned an auditing project. After working on the project for 90 minutes,
she spent several hours attending to personal matters. As a result, Big Ten discharged Novitsky.

D E C I S I O N

An
employee discharged from employment for misconduct is disqualified from
receiving unemployment benefits. Minn.
Stat. § 268.095, subd. 4 (1) (2000).
Whether an employee has committed acts of disqualifying misconduct is a
mixed question of fact and law. Colburn v. Pine Portage Madden Bros.,
346 N.W.2d 159, 161 (Minn. 1984). This
court views the commissioner’s factual findings in the light most favorable to
the decision below and will not disturb the findings if there is evidence in
the record that reasonably tends to support them. Lolling v. Midwest Patrol,
545 N.W.2d 372, 377 (Minn. 1996). But
the ultimate question of whether an employee’s actions constitute misconduct,
“is a question of law upon which [the court] remains free to exercise its
independent judgment.” Id. (quotation omitted).

(1)any intentional conduct, on the job or off the job, that
disregards the standards of behavior that an employer has the right to expect
of the employee or disregards the employee’s duties and obligations to the
employer; or

(2)negligent or indifferent conduct, on the job or off the job,
that demonstrates a substantial lack of concern for the employment.

Minn. Stat. §
268.095, subd. 6 (a) (2000).

An employer has the right to expect
an employee to abide by reasonable requests within the expected job duties of
the employee. McGowan v. Executive Express Transp. Enter., 420 N.W.2d 592,
596 (Minn.1988). Generally, when an
employer’s request is reasonable and does not impose an undue burden on the
employee, the employee’s refusal to comply with the request constitutes
misconduct. Soussi v. Blue & White Serv. Corp., 498 N.W.2d 316, 318 (Minn.
App. 1993).

Novitsky
argues that she did not commit employment misconduct because she held her
employer in the highest regard and did the job that she was hired to do. The commissioner’s representative’s
decision, however, was not based on a determination that Novitsky did not do
her job well. The decision was based on
the specific factual finding that on July 10, 2000, Novitsky spent several
hours at work dealing with personal concerns in violation of the written
warning she received on February 8, 2000.

There is
evidence in the record that supports the commissioner’s representative’s
factual finding. On July 10, a Big Ten
employee saw Novitsky working on a personal project at her desk for several
hours during the afternoon. The employee
was not available to testify, but a Big Ten representative who was told about
the incident testified about it.
Hearsay evidence is admissible in unemployment benefit hearings and can
be used to support a determination that an employee was terminated for
misconduct. Youa True Vang v. A-1 Maint.
Serv., 376 N.W.2d 479, 482
(Minn. App. 1985). Another Big
Ten employee testified that on July 10, she saw Novitsky send two personal
faxes to her realtor and receive one fax from her realtor.

In
the February warning letter, Big Ten informed Novitsky that she was to perform
her auditing duties eight hours per day.
Because there is evidence tending to
support the commissioner’s findings that Novitsky worked on personal matters
for several hours on July 10 rather than performing auditing duties for eight
hours as required, and Big Ten’s request that Novitsky not perform
personal tasks during work hours was a reasonable request, we conclude that
Novitsky was discharged for employment misconduct.